The case for Idaho Stops

[mstone]

@jrenaut 84798 wrote:

After reading Wash Cycle’s point about the comparison with right on red, I finally read this article, and it reaffirms my feeling that Idaho Stops, just like right on red, should be illegal anywhere you’d reasonably expect to see a pedestrian. Right on red is terrible in crowded cities – it just lets cars bully pedestrians in the one section of the street that’s really supposed to belong to walkers, not cars. Bringing in the Idaho Stop would just let bikes bully pedestrians, too.

I don’t really see this. For the set of people actually impacted by the proposed change (those that aren’t already running through red lights and stop signs at full speed) there’s a tangible difference in the ability to intimidate people while you’re wobbling on a bike at low speed vs intimidating them from behind the wheel of a canyonero–if I hit a pedestrian as I’m creeping forward I’m far more likely to just fall over than to put them in the hospital. If this were to suddenly become an issue I would certainly support the idea of enforcing the heck out of failure to yield at a crosswalk. (I wish there were more enforcement for that already.)

[mstone]

@thucydides 84803 wrote:

I wonder if part of a solution to what dasgeh raises with complex intersection and that jrenaut raises with pedestrians and with the Idaho stop issue generally is far wider spread use of bike-specific lights. I’m talking about ones like we see on the Rosslyn hill, only ones that make sense. Yellow essentially allows an Idaho stop or somewhat faster variants. Red means stop and stayed stopped until it changes. Red is used for complicated intersections and high-foot-traffic intersections when peds have the walk sign.

It’s not practical from a purely financial standpoint–traffic lights are far more expensive than people probably realize, and I’d much rather see a simple rule change than see the gov’t throwing millions of dollars into extra lights. (We simply don’t have millions of extra dollars allocated to bicycle infrastructure, which you know is the fund they’d raid for this.)

[dasgeh]

@jrenaut 84798 wrote:

After reading Wash Cycle’s point about the comparison with right on red, I finally read this article, and it reaffirms my feeling that Idaho Stops, just like right on red, should be illegal anywhere you’d reasonably expect to see a pedestrian. Right on red is terrible in crowded cities – it just lets cars bully pedestrians in the one section of the street that’s really supposed to belong to walkers, not cars. Bringing in the Idaho Stop would just let bikes bully pedestrians, too.

Both laws are fine for Idaho and places with low population density, or suburbs where the infrastructure is already so hostile to pedestrians that they don’t bother getting out of their cars.

@mstone 84805 wrote:

I don’t really see this. For the set of people actually impacted by the proposed change (those that aren’t already running through red lights and stop signs at full speed) there’s a tangible difference in the ability to intimidate people while you’re wobbling on a bike at low speed vs intimidating them from behind the wheel of a canyonero–if I hit a pedestrian as I’m creeping forward I’m far more likely to just fall over than to put them in the hospital. If this were to suddenly become an issue I would certainly support the idea of enforcing the heck out of failure to yield at a crosswalk. (I wish there were more enforcement for that already.)

This is why I like the “redefining ‘stop'” option for bikes at stop signs — you could treat a stop sign as a yield, and still keep enough speed (e.g. when the sight-lines are good) to intimidate pedestrians. If instead you require bikes to slow to X mph no matter what, they’ll be ready to stop if there is a car/ped/zombie that jumps into the street, and they won’t intimidate pedestrians, because the peds could knock them over.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 84808 wrote:

This is why I like the “redefining ‘stop'” option for bikes at stop signs — you could treat a stop sign as a yield, and still keep enough speed (e.g. when the sight-lines are good) to intimidate pedestrians. If instead you require bikes to slow to X mph no matter what, they’ll be ready to stop if there is a car/ped/zombie that jumps into the street, and they won’t intimidate pedestrians, because the peds could knock them over.

I suspect that some motorists will wonder why 3MPH (say) means ‘stop’ for cyclists, but not for motorists. I don’t think its going to be any easier to defend than the Idaho stop as its the law in Idaho. Plus of course in places where there are no pedestrians (see my google street view link above – there is no real place for a pedestrian to cross to there, and there are other places like that) a higher cycling speed is probably justified. I think passing Idaho, with exceptions by zone (like sidewalk cycling) and by sign (like right on red) would work best, and be as defensible as any other solution. But I’m not holding my breath.

[kcb203]

I don’t think a no right on red would do anything at the Intersection of Doom. I’m worried about people turning right on green when I’m in the crosswalk with a white walk sign, not turning when the walk sign is on red and I’m standing on the curb.

[dasgeh]

@kcb203 84826 wrote:

I don’t think a no right on red would do anything at the Intersection of Doom. I’m worried about people turning right on green when I’m in the crosswalk with a white walk sign, not turning when the walk sign is on red and I’m standing on the curb.

Right now, there’s a leading pedestrian signal there (peds have white, while the cars coming off I66 have red), but it doesn’t do any good because cars are allowed to turn on red. Having no turn on red would help a little bit. But I agree it doesn’t solve the problem with the rest of the light cycle.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 84808 wrote:

This is why I like the “redefining ‘stop'” option for bikes at stop signs — you could treat a stop sign as a yield, and still keep enough speed (e.g. when the sight-lines are good) to intimidate pedestrians. If instead you require bikes to slow to X mph no matter what, they’ll be ready to stop if there is a car/ped/zombie that jumps into the street, and they won’t intimidate pedestrians, because the peds could knock them over.

I see this as infeasible, unenforceable, and not addressing the issue. I don’t think most cyclists can tell if they’re going 3MPH vs 1MPH or 5MPH. The number is so low as to be effectively meaningless. Nor can any currently deployed speed control device accurately report on something going that slowly. If the concern is not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, then enforce based on yielding to pedestrians in a crosswalk.

In practical terms, my real-world behavior isn’t to see a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk, zoom up to the crosswalk, then slow way down, then zoom off. My real world behavior is to see the approaching pedestrian, slow down sufficiently so that the pedestrian will be gone by the time I get to the crosswalk, then proceed. The focus should be on me not being where the pedestrian is, not on my speed.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 84831 wrote:

I see this as infeasible, unenforceable, and not addressing the issue. I don’t think most cyclists can tell if they’re going 3MPH vs 1MPH or 5MPH. The number is so low as to be effectively meaningless. Nor can any currently deployed speed control device accurately report on something going that slowly. If the concern is not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalk, then enforce based on yielding to pedestrians in a crosswalk.

In practical terms, my real-world behavior isn’t to see a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk, zoom up to the crosswalk, then slow way down, then zoom off. My real world behavior is to see the approaching pedestrian, slow down sufficiently so that the pedestrian will be gone by the time I get to the crosswalk, then proceed. The focus should be on me not being where the pedestrian is, not on my speed.

What do you see as the issue?

I see the issue that we’re discussing as the law re: bikes at stop signs. I see that the problem with said law is the behavior that is most efficient for all (bikes slow to a speed where they could stop, but don’t stop all the way unless necessary) is illegal under said law. By changing the definition of “stopped”, we cyclists couldn’t get a ticket for slowing a lot but not stopping all the way. In other words, non-enforceable directly addresses the issue. It is very feasible to define terms in statutes (I do it every day).

A side issue was brought up about bullying pedestrians — if a cyclist is zooming towards an intersection without slowing at all, the pedestrian might not start crossing, and be bullied into effectively yielding the right of way. Under my solution, you’re right that someone could zoom, slow super quickly, then zoom again, but most people don’t do that.

[Crickey7]

I think the Idaho Stop is a bad idea. Once you introduce the idea that individual users of the roads are entitled to decide whether or not to obey traffic control devices based on subjective evaluations of safety, you introduce a few problems. People are going to vary widely in their evaluation of whether or not it’s safe. Right now, all the “scofflaw cyclists” who manage to frighten the cr*p out of pedestrians and cars absolutely believe they’re being safe, even when the videotape shows they’re not, in many cases. While traffic controls devices lose some efficiency because there is no discretion, at least they create the necessary preconditions for safety.

It doesn’t matter, though. At a matter of sheer political influence, the prospects of passing a law that motorists will see as rewarding noxious behavior, when even a dooring bill could not be passed last year in Virginia, have to be regarded as quite poor. Our efforts woudl be better spent on more fruitful endeavors.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 84832 wrote:

What do you see as the issue?[/quote]

I don’t know, you seem to be changing it. I thought your concern was pedestrian safety, and my point was that should be addressed by something that actually refers to pedestrians (e.g., enforcement of existing laws requiring people to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk) rather than applying an arbitrary speed limits to all cyclists everywhere. The end result of your proposal would either be no enforcement of the limit (because it’s technically infeasible to radar gun a guy on a bike to make sure he’s going 3MPH) or enforcement of the limit in venues where pedestrian safety is not at issue (like the Falls Church PD jumping out of bushes at otherwise empty intersections). I completely support any measure that would improve pedestrian safety, and have long advocated a tougher line on crosswalks, but I don’t think this proposal addresses that.

Quote:

I see the issue that we’re discussing as the law re: bikes at stop signs. I see that the problem with said law is the behavior that is most efficient for all (bikes slow to a speed where they could stop, but don’t stop all the way unless necessary) is illegal under said law. By changing the definition of “stopped”, we cyclists couldn’t get a ticket for slowing a lot but not stopping all the way. In other words, non-enforceable directly addresses the issue. It is very feasible to define terms in statutes (I do it every day).

I honestly don’t know what this paragraph means. I see “proceed with caution through the intersection, yielding to any other traffic or pedestrians” as addressing the legal issue around slowing without stopping, without adding some pointless speed limit. I also think that it needs to clearly state that the cyclist is still responsible for actually stopping (foot down, hop off the bike, whatever) if it is unsafe to enter the intersection or if the cyclist can’t enter the intersection without violating someone else’s right of way. I don’t want Barney Fife issuing tickets for safe behavior at empty intersections, but if the cyclist is acting unsafely I don’t want “I wasn’t required to stop, only slow down to 3MPH” to be a line of defense. We should have the freedom to use our judgement, but there still needs to be a consequence to bad judgement.

[mstone]

@Crickey7 84833 wrote:

I think the Idaho Stop is a bad idea. Once you introduce the idea that individual users of the roads are entitled to decide whether or not to obey traffic control devices based on subjective evaluations of safety, you introduce a few problems. People are going to vary widely in their evaluation of whether or not it’s safe. Right now, all the “scofflaw cyclists” who manage to frighten the cr*p out of pedestrians and cars absolutely believe they’re being safe, even when the videotape shows they’re not, in many cases. While traffic controls devices lose some efficiency because there is no discretion, at least they create the necessary preconditions for safety.

Here’s the thing–if the scary behavior is so unsafe, why aren’t those scofflaws killing more people? The current system of stop signs, stop lights, etc., wasn’t enacted because cars were scaring people, it’s because they were killing people. That’s why pedestrians and cyclists should have more discretion–they don’t have this habit of killing people.

Agree that we won’t see this in Virginia any time in the foreseeable future.

[Crickey7]

We have jaywalking laws, and jaywalkers don’t kill anyone. So that’s clearly not the standard.

And really, I see the behavior first hand. It’s not safe. It’s not okay to make peopel jump back for fear of being run over. It’s not acceptable to force road users who have the right of way to yield it, or hit the cyclist. It’s not okay to have all other users act hesitantly because they cannot predict what a cyclist will do.

Road rules promote predictability. That’s a good thing. The Idaho Stop promotes unpredictability.

[dasgeh]

@Crickey7 84836 wrote:

The Idaho Stop promotes unpredictability.

Other points you make our good, but this one is totally unsupported. You have your expectation, sure, but this law is actually on the books in some places, and the evidence that I’ve seen says that it all works out just fine. Or have you seen evidence to the contrary?

[mstone]

@Crickey7 84836 wrote:

We have jaywalking laws, and jaywalkers don’t kill anyone. So that’s clearly not the standard.

And really, I see the behavior first hand. It’s not safe. It’s not okay to make peopel jump back for fear of being run over. It’s not acceptable to force road users who have the right of way to yield it, or hit the cyclist. It’s not okay to have all other users act hesitantly because they cannot predict what a cyclist will do.

Road rules promote predictability. That’s a good thing. The Idaho Stop promotes unpredictability.

I see the jaywalking laws, as currently implemented, as a travesty. I also didn’t say that all laws were implemented with death as a standard, only pointed out the historical context that led to traffic control devices. I completely agree that people shouldn’t scare other people. But, obviously, the current scheme isn’t preventing the behavior you are concerned about. So I suggest that we modify the current scheme to allow safe cyclist behavior while also cracking down on actual unsafe behavior. I’d also support promoting courteous behavior above and beyond merely safe behavior. But I think it’s really important to keep these things in perspective. Bemoaning an Idaho stop law because it increases the danger to pedestrians is patently absurd when the risk of a pedestrian being killed by a cyclist is near zero while cars run over pedestrians in crosswalks and on sidewalks literally every day.

[Crickey7]

@mstone 84840 wrote:

I see the jaywalking laws, as currently implemented, as a travesty. I also didn’t say that all laws were implemented with death as a standard, only pointed out the historical context that led to traffic control devices. I completely agree that people shouldn’t scare other people. But, obviously, the current scheme isn’t preventing the behavior you are concerned about. So I suggest that we modify the current scheme to allow safe cyclist behavior while also cracking down on actual unsafe behavior. I’d also support promoting courteous behavior above and beyond merely safe behavior. But I think it’s really important to keep these things in perspective. Bemoaning an Idaho stop law because it increases the danger to pedestrians is patently absurd when the risk of a pedestrian being killed by a cyclist is near zero while cars run over pedestrians in crosswalks and on sidewalks literally every day.

I lack faith in people’s innate ability or desire to be courteous. And certainly the history of past efforts to get the cycling community to behave better have not been crowned with success. Laws will be broken, but at least they set a universally understood baseline that better encourage complying behavior.

[Author]

Posts